Grand Theft Auto V is a good game, don't get me wrong, but is it really deserved of a 10/10 rating? Not for me. Again, don't get me wrong, I think Grand Theft Auto V is a very good game. For Rockstar and Take Two Interactive to invest around £170 million, there can be no doubt in regards to the effort and vision put in by the team at Rockstar. However, the rating is not given for effort, it is given for the final product. Which is what I would like to talk about in this blog entry.

Grand Theft Auto V has been available for a couple of weeks now. I've managed to complete the main story, as well as the vast majority of side activities available. I have also spent 10-20 hours on GTA Online. For me, Grand Theft Auto V is an 8.5/10. 8.5 is a great rating. I think the game is very, very good...Just not 10/10 good. My reasoning for giving GTA V an 8.5/10 comes down to a number of factors. Factors I will now discuss.

Story

My main issue with the story in Grand Theft Auto V is that it's too comical. Previous GTA's have carried a perfect balance between seriousness and humour. However, GTA V pushes more towards humour than seriousness. I'm sure a lot of people are fine with that. However, I've always preferred that perfect balance between the two. Take Grand Theft Auto IV for example. With Niko Bellic you had a serious protagonist, with a serious background. Then you had the humour side of the game represented through the silly names given to corporations, and through some of the more over the top characters in the game. With GTA V, I just felt that it was pushing more in the direction of Saints Row territory rather than keeping with what I expect in a GTA story.

As well as this, I also had some issues with the three protagonists. In particular, Franklin. At the beginning of the game I felt that all three characters were on a level playing field. There wasn't one that I favoured over the others. I was interested in all three of them, and wanted to see where these characters were going. However, as the game progressed, Franklin became less and less of a character. I lost interest in him. The game became the Michael and Trevor show. Michael and Trevor would frequently bring up their history together. They had a weird sense of chemistry together. As a result of this, Franklin became somewhat of a side character. I also grew tired of Franklin's mission structure. The majority of Franklin's missions are simply 'repossessing' vehicles. That being said, I also had issues with Michael, Trevor, and Franklin collectively.

All three protagonists lacked depth. They lacked strong character motivations. Take Michael for example. Michaels motivation (If you can call it that) is that he is simply looking for something to fill the void in his life. As for Trevor, Trevor has neither depth nor motivation. Then there's Franklin who is simply looking to 'escape' the hood. If the protagonist lacks a strong motivation, then trying to connect to them becomes somewhat of a challenge. If there's no strong interest in the protagonists, then there's no strong interest in the story.

I'd like to make it clear, I don't hate these characters. I think they are good fun. Trevor and his antics made me laugh on many occasion. Michael and his entire predicament throughout the game was very amusing. Franklin and his 'homie' Lemar were a very entertaining pair. I just felt that looking back on previous Grand Theft Auto's, this did not feel the same. As I touched upon somewhere above, It felt more like Saints Row than GTA in regards to the humour. I found the story as a whole very average.

-On a side note, I have to say that the three voice actors are fantastic. The voice work was brilliant.

Gameplay

The gameplay in Grand Theft Auto V is a step up. No question about that. The visuals, the character animations, the combat etc. Everything has been pushed forward. However, I do have a few issues. I wanted to first talk about the world. GTA V has a big world. How much of that world is made up of hills and grasslands though? How much of that world is desert and sea? Rockstar are not the only ones guilty of this. Ubisoft have done it on many occasions too. I'm not sure about you, but this is something I have a problem with. Let's be honest, 70-80% of the world in GTA V is made up of hills, mountains, and deserts. You have the main city at the bottom of the map, but then it's just nothingness. If you look at Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag, Ubisoft are guilty of this too. 80% of the world in ACIV is ocean. It's not something to really boast about. Creating 70-80% of the world into hills and grassland is not difficult. I feel that this is more of a problem for me than it is for others. I just think that if you're going to boast about a big open world, at least fill the majority of it with detail and structure. Perhaps there's a case to be argued that creating such big worlds can result in the story suffering.

Moving onto heists. This was a big talking point in the build up to the release. Rockstar made it clear on many occasions how important and significant heists would be in Grand Theft Auto V. The heists did not live up to the expectation. In terms of the planning of a heist, it's rather simplistic. I already have near perfect crew member from the start. Why would I pick a crew member that's obviously going to struggle, when I can just pick the one with the near perfect stats and not have to worry? You could argue that the best crew members take the biggest cut. However, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. In terms of what I can spend my money on, there's not actually that much on offer. Clothes and haircuts are cheap. Leaving the only other thing to buy being vehicles. Maybe if you're going for certain achievements you could argue a case for using the lesser crew members. However, for me, there was no moment of hesitation when picking my crew members. On top of this, the heists themselves went by rather quick. Anyone else feel the same in regards to this matter?

Let me quickly talk about GTA Online now. It's a mess. Putting it as simply as possible. Admittedly It's got better over the past few weeks. Patches are being released to fix a vast number of issues. However, when you actually look at the online and what it is, you start to think what's the point. The aim of GTA Online is to make as much money as possible. You will then buy an apartment and some vehicles. That's it. You have the typical competitive game modes such as deathmatch and races, but I've never been one for the competitive multiplayer in Grand Theft Auto. The point I'm trying to make is that the online is good for a couple hours. Then you start to ask yourself "What the f*** am I doing here?"

I could go on and on about Grand Theft Auto V. I could write pages of what's great about it, and I could write pages about what's bad about it. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that I seriously think a 10/10 is being extremely generous. There's nothing particularly new and unique about GTA V. The story is rather average. The characters are rather average (antagonists included) A 10/10 rating suggests that the game is touching upon perfection. Are we really saying GTA V is a near perfect game? If you believe so, great. Everyone's got their own opinions. I'm just sharing mine.

The Saints Row franchise is one that has gone through quite a substantial amount of change in recent years. Specifically in regards to the direction. Saints Row The Third is where we saw this change in direction occur. This was for a number of reasons. The main reason being the fact that the sales figures for Saints Row and Saints Row 2 were not where THQ anticipated them to be.

The first Saints Row sold around 2 million copies. Saints Row 2 saw a rise in sales, albeit a small rise, in which THQ saw around 3.5 million units sold. Obviously THQ were not content with these figures, thus decided to change the direction of the series. This actually proved to be effective. THQ's decision to incorporate crazy gameplay and over-the-top action saw Saints Row The Third reach a sales figure of 5.5 million copies. Personally, I am not a big fan of this change in direction. Having played the first two games that had a somewhat serious narrative to them, this sudden explosion of insane gameplay and crazy narrative doesn't feel right in regards to the structure. If the series had started off with this crazy concept, I would have been more accepting of it.

However, with Saints Row IV just around the corner (August) how well will the latest entry into the series fair in comparison to its predecessor. In my opinion, I predict that Saints Row IV will sell around about the same amount of copies as Saints Row The Third. Perhaps slightly more. Here are my reasons as to why I think this:

1. Release Date - Saints Row IV will be released during the summer holidays. This is typically known to be an extremely dry period for video games. Arcade and Indie tend to thrive during this time however. Me and my friends make the same statement every summer holiday - "There's nothing to play". My point is that people (adolescents) will be looking desperately for something to play. Saints Row IV will make a substantial amount of sales as a result of this.

2. Next Gen - The reason I can't see it selling a considerable amount more than its predecessor is because of the next generation consoles and games that are a few months away from release. A lot of people will be saving their money for the very expensive months ahead. Saints Row fans will buy the game regardless, but the neutral gamers looking for a game to play will look at the likes of Watch Dogs and decide to withhold their money for that instead.

3. New Direction - Clearly this new direction is proving to be effective. 5.5 million copies for Saints Row The Third is evidence of this. The Saints Row franchise has brought in a whole new audience as a result of this crazy direction. I'd say that a lot of the people playing Saints Row are in fact in their adolescents. Saints Row IV is rated at an 18, but that doesn't stop a teenager from asking his mum or dad to buy it for them. Even kids are likely playing this game. When an advertisement comes on the TV for Saints Row IV and shows explosions, professor Genki, and all the other craziness that exists in the game, kids will immediately run to their parents and ask them to buy it. Bizarrely I feel they make up a large percentage of the audience.

Recently certain websites and their reviews have been receiving a substantial amount of criticism for the ratings they have been awarding certain games. In fact, this has been something common in the video game industry for decades. The reviews for Naughty Dog's PlayStation exclusive The Last of Us came out in their force on Wednesday. The Last of Us is currently the highest rated game of the year, and has cemented its position as one of the highest rated games of all time. IGN along with dozens of other websites across the internet have described the game as a 'masterpiece'. Colin Moriarty, author of IGN's review, even stated that this is "The best game on PlayStation 3", which is pretty significant when you consider the ridiculous amount of quality exclusives that the PS3 has to offer.

The game has been picking up perfect scores from nearly every video game website. The Last of Us is currently sitting at 96 on Metacritic from 61 reviews. However, there are a couple of reviews out there that have awarded the game a much lesser score. GameSpot and Polygon come to mind in this matter. Polygon awarded the game a 7.5/10, the lowest score that The Last of Us has received. GameSpot gave it a 8.0/10. It's safe to say that these reviews of a 'lesser' score have not exactly gone down well with the gaming community. Is this right? Should people be as vocal with their opinions as they are being? Are these reviews a fair and accurate representation of The Last of Us? More to the point, how much subjectivity is going into these reviews, and how much is too much?

Firstly, both GameSpot and Polygon wrote excellent reviews. They were a pleasure to read. But are people right to publicly criticise the authors and their work, Specifically in regards to the score? The vast amount of the comments received for both reviews were that of a negative nature. There was also, as always with such content, the bombardment of insults and stupidity among the comment sections. Some of the comments made, defending the reviews, stated the fact that these are the opinions of the author, and that it's their right to give their honest opinion. But are these 'low' ratings justified. Something to consider is the fact that these reviews and scores can have a massive impact on the developers behind the game. They can make or break a company, especially in today's economic state. When around 30 reviews have given a perfect score, and nearly just as many have given between 9-10, is the 7.5 from Polygon and the 8.0 from GameSpot evidence of subjective dominance from the reviewer?

Ultimately it comes down to what a review should be. First and foremost, the review should tell us what the game is and what the game has to offer. Reviews are there to give us a detailed understanding of the game. How good does the game look? What is the multiplayer like? etc. Reviews cannot be entirely objective. Only a programmed machine could write a review entirely of an objective viewpoint. Subjectivity is not only inevitable, but also necessary in reviews.

When I read IGN's review of The Last of Us, and saw it had received a 10/10, my excitement went to a whole new level. Straight after reading the review I went to see what GameSpot had given it. As mentioned above, it was a pleasant read, but even I will admit that the score given was quite a shock. Part of me feels that we should get rid of scoring altogether, in order to avoid situations such as this.

However, on the whole, I find the scoring of video games useful. For me it provides a general overview of the game. The way I have always looked at it is like this: 7/10 is an average game, 8/10 is a good game, 9/10 is a great game, and 10/10 is touching upon perfection. My favorite review came from Rev3Games. Adam Sessler is fantastic in what he does. An individual who I feel I can entirely trust in regards to the video game industry. Instead of scoring games out of 10, Rev3Games uses a 5 star rating system. I think this is a much better way to score a game. Scoring a game out of 10 opens up many different perspectives, causing arguments and negative comments. Having a 5 star system limits the mass perspectives on scoring that exist and reduce the problems that occur.

The reviewers from Gamespot and Polygon were well in their right to give The Last of Us the scores that they did. At the end of the day, a review is always going to be made up of the reviewers opinion. These reviews achieve what a review should provide. They tell us about the game and its mechanics. They tell us about the little niggles and issues the game has. They achieve the objective aspect of the review. I feel that the problem lies with the traditional scoring system so many review sites favor. In my opinion, the scoring should either be reduced from 10 to 5, or made into the 5 star system.

There's no denying the fact that video games are still very much looked down upon by the majority of mainstream society. Despite the incredible evolution of video games over the years, from simple arcade games to massive open worlds, telling people you're a gamer is still looked upon in a negative light. Where as movies are seen as 'cool' and 'mainstream', video games are still seen as a 'nerdy' and 'sad'. Although gamers are a vast community, growing all the time, we tend to keep are gaming passion away from mainstream society, due to fear of being mocked or insulted. I've been a passionate gamer all my life, but you won't catch me singing that to all my friends and peers. On the other hand, If I went around telling people I'm passionate about movies , no one would say a word. In fact, they would probably start a conversation and ask what my favorite movie is. When you tell people you're a gamer, or you're passionate about video games, the instant response is that of being stereotyped. People instantly think of that obese 40 year old, living in his mum and dads basement. This is where I believe David Cage is managing to change the industry.

Quantic Dream and David Cage are shaping the future of the video game industry through creating truly unique video games. David Cage continues to state how he wants to create stories that provoke an emotional response from the players. Heavy Rain was the first bit of evidence of this. Never have I played a game like Heavy Rain. An interactive drama based video game. Hard moral decisions and in depth characters are something that Quantic Dream strive towards. Beyond: Two Souls is Quantic Dreams next major project, being released in October. Yesterday I watched the 35 minute preview of the game. It's safe to say that I was well and truly mind blown. 35 minutes was all that was shown of the game. I was in absolute awe of what they showed in such a short space of time. It was a 35 minute emotional roller coaster. These are examples of David Cage reducing the divide between gamers and mainstream society. By making video games more movie like, and by using well known stars as the main characters (Ellen Page and Willem Dafoe) that mass negativity held by mainstream society starts to change. People will become more accepting of video games, and soon view them in the same light as movies.

There are those however who argue that David Cage is not creating video games. Some would argue that he and Quantic Dream are creating movie like experiences, rather than the gaming experience. There's no question that Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls are very different from your typical video game. These games aren't anything like your Call of Duty's and Halo's. Gameplay is present, but it isn't as obvious as it is in those such titles. I loved Heavy Rain and I can not wait for Beyond: Two Souls. I personally still see a video game when I look at these two games. A new kind of video game. Video games have evolved dramatically over the years, and I feel that we are on the verge of another evolution. Quantic Dream and David Cage are most defiantly pushing for it anyway. I have the utmost respect for the work they are doing and hope they continue down this path for year to come.

Bioshock Infinite is one of the best games I have ever played. Every part of this game is incredibly beautiful. From the narrative and visuals, to the score and voice acting. This is one of those games you will remember and carry with you for the rest of your life. The experience is unlike any other. For me, the only downside to this near perfect game is the fact that I won't have an experience like this for a very long time. DAMN YOU IRRATIONAL GAMES!

As with the original Bioshock, the introduction to the world will leave you utterly speechless. The flying city of Columbia is a creative masterpiece that will leave you in absolute awe. For me, the opening to Bioshock Infinite is the best opening to a video game I have ever played. The mixture of music and visuals is truly spectacular. When you first set foot in Columbia you can instantly see that a religious theme is something the game focuses heavily upon. The people of the city follow ''the prophet'' who goes by the name of Father Comstock. He has spread an extreme vision of America to the people of Columbia. A vision of purity and supremacy. A vision where he rules and his ''seed'' sits at the throne of Columbia.

In terms of narrative, Bioshock manages to create something truly unforgettable. What seems like a straight forward plot to begin with, slowly spirals into something much more complex. By the end of the game you are left with a somewhat numb feeling. (A good numb feeling). In which you will constantly be made to think and question the bizarre. Playing as the protagonist, Booker Dewitt, you must travel to the flying city of Columbia to retrieve a certain girl and bring her back to New York. Seems simple enough, right? However, as the story progresses you start to learn more and more about yourself (Booker) and the type of individual you are. You also start to see that behind this beautiful city, lays a dark and mysterious foundation. I won't go into anymore detail and spoil things, but what I can say is that this is one of the most ambitious stories I have ever been a part of.

Something I love about Bioshock games is the atmosphere they manage to create. Bioshock Infinite manages to recreate a lot of the atmospheric moments we felt in the original Bioshock, whilst at the same time creating new ones. In Bioshock Infinite I felt a mixture of discomfort, uncertainty, intensity and mystery. All of which were wonderful and made the experience memorable. Irrational Games continue to create this unique experience.

Much of the build up to this game focused heavily on the character Elizabeth, and the vision behind her creation. The connection between you (the protagonist) and the character Elizabeth is one that develops over the course of the game. In fact, the second you lay eyes on Elizabeth you feel and instant connection. From this point on, it continues to grow, and you start to feel an obligation to keep this girl safe from the many dangers that surround her. I absolutely loved the characters in the game. The voice acting is brilliant and engaging. Booker and Elizabeth are two characters I will remember for a long time. Credit to Troy Baker and Courtnee Draper.

Ultimately, Bioshock is an absolutely incredible experience. The gameplay is fun, innovative and somewhat challenging. The story is unlike any other. The game is visually and artistically superb. Finally, the music and sound is some of the best I have ever heard. I find myself constantly listening to the soundtrack of the game.